On Mar 1, 9:40*am, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:33:48 -0500, dxAce
wrote:



m II wrote:

dxAcehole, pathological liar, racist and common drunk,
during his fifth annual Farewell Forever tour, said:

Well, at least I'm not a drunken dumbass Canuck

It would be a vast improvement over the pile of manure that you are now..

Even a pile of manure is better than a drunken dumbass Canuck!
-
- Glad to see that this ng is back on track;
-*after a couple weeks of the RHF vs Telamon threads
- I was wondering if we'd ever recover.
- Seeing you two exchange barbs is
- like coming home to an old friend.
-

GH - It Sure Do ! ) ~ RHF

On Mar 1, 9:46*am, m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

IBOCcrock wrote:

Got these responses yesterday from a newpaper reporter in Florida, for
an article they just ran on HD Radio:

******,

Glad to peruse your blog. Thanks for the technical lesson. I
appreciate it. HD Radio smelled of smoke and mirrors when I first
began researching the article, and I didn't change my mind when I
finished writing it. I have XM satellite and it is more than I need,
AND I enjoy the choices. Perhaps HD stands for Humpty-Dumpty; who
knows? In the long run, market always has a way of "rewarding" such
chicanery.

It seems as though the FCC is turning a deaf ear to the interference
problem. Of course, that's not so rare for Cabinet-level agencies. Be
well, and keep up the valuable service you've been doing, and thank
you for the feedback. My editor was very happy with the article for
helping her sort out the bull**** from the bourbon.

Or, in the case of 'Eduardo', it would be a question of separating the bull****
from the tequila.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



I've never been convinced that what he posts here is actually a
bone-deep belief. Lately, I've been more aware of the sense that he's as
much trying to convince himself of the veracity of his positions as he
is trying to convince us.

As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement I've
worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune HD
until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it finally
becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's not going
to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has been
invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate.

Till then, the shills will continue to hawk, demean, and argue.

And contrary to their own assertions, they neither hear, nor will
listen to anything that conflicts their chosen stance.

m II wrote:


The last word, as always, is yours.


If that were true, you would have shut up weeks ago.

On Mar 5, 2:51*pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

IBOCcrock wrote:

Got these responses yesterday from a newpaper reporter in Florida, for
an article they just ran on HD Radio:

******,

Glad to peruse your blog. *Thanks for the technical lesson. *I
appreciate it. HD Radio smelled of smoke and mirrors when I first
began researching the article, and I didn't change my mind when I
finished writing it. *I have XM satellite and it is more than I need,
AND I enjoy the choices. Perhaps HD stands for Humpty-Dumpty; who
knows? In the long run, market always has a way of "rewarding" such
chicanery.

It seems as though the FCC is turning a deaf ear to the interference
problem. *Of course, that's not so rare for Cabinet-level agencies. Be
well, and keep up the valuable service you've been doing, and thank
you for the feedback. *My editor was very happy with the article for
helping her sort out the bull**** from the bourbon.

Or, in the case of 'Eduardo', it would be a question of separating the bull****
from the tequila.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

* *I've never been convinced that what he posts here is actually a
bone-deep belief. Lately, I've been more aware of the sense that he's as
much trying to convince himself of the veracity of his positions as he
is trying to convince us.

* *As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement I've
worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune HD
until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it finally
becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's not going
to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has been
invested.
- Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate.

* *Till then, the shills will continue to hawk, demean, and argue.

* *And contrary to their own assertions, they neither hear, nor will
listen to anything that conflicts their chosen stance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now those are Words to Remember :
"Spectacular Failures usually take a Decade to Gestate."
- - - D Peter Maus 2008

On Mar 5, 5:51�pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

IBOCcrock wrote:

Got these responses yesterday from a newpaper reporter in Florida, for
an article they just ran on HD Radio:

******,

Glad to peruse your blog. �Thanks for the technical lesson. �I
appreciate it. HD Radio smelled of smoke and mirrors when I first
began researching the article, and I didn't change my mind when I
finished writing it. �I have XM satellite and it is more than I need,
AND I enjoy the choices. Perhaps HD stands for Humpty-Dumpty; who
knows? In the long run, market always has a way of "rewarding" such
chicanery.

It seems as though the FCC is turning a deaf ear to the interference
problem. �Of course, that's not so rare for Cabinet-level agencies. Be
well, and keep up the valuable service you've been doing, and thank
you for the feedback. �My editor was very happy with the article for
helping her sort out the bull**** from the bourbon.

Or, in the case of 'Eduardo', it would be a question of separating the bull****
from the tequila.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

� �I've never been convinced that what he posts here is actually a
bone-deep belief. Lately, I've been more aware of the sense that he's as
much trying to convince himself of the veracity of his positions as he
is trying to convince us.

� �As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement I've
worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune HD
until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it finally
becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's not going
to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has been
invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate.

� �Till then, the shills will continue to hawk, demean, and argue.

� �And contrary to their own assertions, they neither hear, nor will
listen to anything that conflicts their chosen stance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement
I've worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune
HD until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it
finally becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's
not going to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has
been invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate."

Yup, we've heard this before - iBiquity will continue to demand fees
and percentages. The new 10db increase in FM-HD, if approved, will
require the replacement of all hardware, and won't happen:

http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/200...-hd-radio.html

Major broadcaster stocks are down 90%, and Clear Channel is down 2/3
and up for sale. CC is stopping all investments in the future and
pulled the plug on 294 HD Format Lab channels:

"CLEAR CHANNEL PULLS THE PLUG ON SOME HD RADIO STATIONS"

"After conducting a survey of 340 HD2 stations to determine their
programming needs, the folks at Clear Channel have dumped a number of
their HD 'Format Lab' stations, due to a lack of demand."

http://talentfilter.blogspot.com/200...-some-hd..html

"Clear Channel's murky future"

"Sad because eliminating new hires (including sellers), failing to
replace those who leave, stopping all investment in the future, and
halting all advertising and research is the equivalent of saying that
necessity requires us to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs,
even as the goose is up for sale."

http://www.hear2.com/2008/01/clear-channels.html

Stations will get tired of paying fees and associated costs with
running HD, with no chance of ever generating an ROI.

IBOCcrock wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:51�pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

IBOCcrock wrote:
Got these responses yesterday from a newpaper reporter in Florida, for
an article they just ran on HD Radio:
******,
Glad to peruse your blog. �Thanks for the technical lesson. �I
appreciate it. HD Radio smelled of smoke and mirrors when I first
began researching the article, and I didn't change my mind when I
finished writing it. �I have XM satellite and it is more than I need,
AND I enjoy the choices. Perhaps HD stands for Humpty-Dumpty; who
knows? In the long run, market always has a way of "rewarding" such
chicanery.
It seems as though the FCC is turning a deaf ear to the interference
problem. �Of course, that's not so rare for Cabinet-level agencies. Be
well, and keep up the valuable service you've been doing, and thank
you for the feedback. �My editor was very happy with the article for
helping her sort out the bull**** from the bourbon.
Or, in the case of 'Eduardo', it would be a question of separating the bull****
from the tequila.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
� �I've never been convinced that what he posts here is actually a
bone-deep belief. Lately, I've been more aware of the sense that he's as
much trying to convince himself of the veracity of his positions as he
is trying to convince us.

� �As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement I've
worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune HD
until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it finally
becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's not going
to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has been
invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate.

� �Till then, the shills will continue to hawk, demean, and argue.

� �And contrary to their own assertions, they neither hear, nor will
listen to anything that conflicts their chosen stance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement
I've worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune
HD until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it
finally becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's
not going to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has
been invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate."

Yup, we've heard this before - iBiquity will continue to demand fees
and percentages. The new 10db increase in FM-HD, if approved, will
require the replacement of all hardware, and won't happen:

http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/200...-hd-radio.html

Major broadcaster stocks are down 90%, and Clear Channel is down 2/3
and up for sale. CC is stopping all investments in the future and
pulled the plug on 294 HD Format Lab channels:

"CLEAR CHANNEL PULLS THE PLUG ON SOME HD RADIO STATIONS"

"After conducting a survey of 340 HD2 stations to determine their
programming needs, the folks at Clear Channel have dumped a number of
their HD 'Format Lab' stations, due to a lack of demand."

http://talentfilter.blogspot.com/200...n-some-hd.html

"Clear Channel's murky future"

"Sad because eliminating new hires (including sellers), failing to
replace those who leave, stopping all investment in the future, and
halting all advertising and research is the equivalent of saying that
necessity requires us to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs,
even as the goose is up for sale."

http://www.hear2.com/2008/01/clear-channels.html

Stations will get tired of paying fees and associated costs with
running HD, with no chance of ever generating an ROI.



And it's not going to happen overnight. It will take time.

In article
,
D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:

IBOCcrock wrote:

Got these responses yesterday from a newpaper reporter in Florida, for
an article they just ran on HD Radio:

******,

Glad to peruse your blog. Thanks for the technical lesson. I
appreciate it. HD Radio smelled of smoke and mirrors when I first
began researching the article, and I didn't change my mind when I
finished writing it. I have XM satellite and it is more than I need,
AND I enjoy the choices. Perhaps HD stands for Humpty-Dumpty; who
knows? In the long run, market always has a way of "rewarding" such
chicanery.

It seems as though the FCC is turning a deaf ear to the interference
problem. Of course, that's not so rare for Cabinet-level agencies. Be
well, and keep up the valuable service you've been doing, and thank
you for the feedback. My editor was very happy with the article for
helping her sort out the bull**** from the bourbon.

Or, in the case of 'Eduardo', it would be a question of separating the
bull****
from the tequila.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



I've never been convinced that what he posts here is actually a
bone-deep belief. Lately, I've been more aware of the sense that he's as
much trying to convince himself of the veracity of his positions as he
is trying to convince us.

As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement I've
worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune HD
until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it finally
becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's not going
to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has been
invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate.

Till then, the shills will continue to hawk, demean, and argue.

And contrary to their own assertions, they neither hear, nor will
listen to anything that conflicts their chosen stance.

David has been to busy eating crow these days to do much of that. I just
picked up the March Monitoring times and the word from Ken Reitz who was
there at the CES show shares my opinion of the state HD semiconductor
development. He things Samsung will have next generation HD chips next
fall at the earliest so any new radio set developments are moved into
2009. In ant event the outlook for portable HD radios is poor due to
power and antenna requirements.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
RHF wrote:

Snip


Now those are Words to Remember :
"Spectacular Failures usually take a Decade to Gestate."
- - - D Peter Maus 2008

We got that the first time. None needs you to repeat it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
RHF wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:27*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,
*D Peter Maus wrote:





dxAce wrote:

IBOCcrock wrote:

Got these responses yesterday from a newpaper reporter in Florida, for
an article they just ran on HD Radio:

******,

Glad to peruse your blog. *Thanks for the technical lesson. *I
appreciate it. HD Radio smelled of smoke and mirrors when I first
began researching the article, and I didn't change my mind when I
finished writing it. *I have XM satellite and it is more than I need,
AND I enjoy the choices. Perhaps HD stands for Humpty-Dumpty; who
knows? In the long run, market always has a way of "rewarding" such
chicanery.

It seems as though the FCC is turning a deaf ear to the interference
problem. *Of course, that's not so rare for Cabinet-level agencies. Be
well, and keep up the valuable service you've been doing, and thank
you for the feedback. *My editor was very happy with the article for
helping her sort out the bull**** from the bourbon.

Or, in the case of 'Eduardo', it would be a question of separating the
bull****
from the tequila.


* *I've never been convinced that what he posts here is actually a
bone-deep belief. Lately, I've been more aware of the sense that he's as
much trying to convince himself of the veracity of his positions as he
is trying to convince us.

* *As much as I'd like to believe IBOCCrock's position that HD is DOA,
it's guys like David, and the general level of executive/manglement I've
worked with at Radio, who will continue to milk/morph/tweak/tune HD
until it either dies a staggering and ignominious death, or it finally
becomes viable, though in a form likely not yet realized. It's not going
to simply vanish. Not only two years out with as much as has been
invested. Spectacular failures usually take a decade to gestate.

* *Till then, the shills will continue to hawk, demean, and argue.

* *And contrary to their own assertions, they neither hear, nor will
listen to anything that conflicts their chosen stance.

David has been to busy eating crow these days to do much of that. I just
picked up the March Monitoring times and the word from Ken Reitz who was
there at the CES show shares my opinion of the state HD semiconductor
development. He things Samsung will have next generation HD chips next
fall at the earliest so any new radio set developments are moved into
2009. In ant event the outlook for portable HD radios is poor due to
power and antenna requirements.


Telamon,

In reality the 'portable' HD-Radio will be part of the Third Wave
of HD-Radio deployment and adoption.

The First Wave - Presently there are first and second
generation HD-Radios for the Home; and these Home
HD-Radios do not have Power as an identifiable issue :
Because they run-off of the House's AC Power {Mains}.

The Second Wave - The "Big Advancement" toward the
Earliy Adoption of HD-Radio will come in the placement
of HD-Radios in Cars and Trucks. Again like in the Home
Power is not and identifiable issue with HD-Radio in the
Car since the HD-Radio runs-off the Car's self-charging
12 Volt Systems.

SNIP

I would like to address this "2 wave" if you don't mind. Another
individual tried to pass this off as second generation but I don't see
it that way. Here you make the argument that the same radio in placed in
cars and trucks constitutes a second wave.

I don't see it that way. For me the change would have to be much larger
than sticking the same thing in a mobile unit. This kind of change looks
like 1.0 to 1.1 instead of 1.0 to 2.0 and is minor at best. The change
is too small to warrant a 1 to 2. For a 1 to 2 change it would have to
have a real impact on how people use it or how its use would affects the
user. That would be looking at it from the user perspective.

From the generational perspective an example would be tube to discrete
solid state to integrated circuits would be 2 generations. Here HD has
not changed either so where does the "2nd wave" or "2nd generation" come
from? Beats me.

No real impact on the user or change in implementation means wave or
generation 1.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California